1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On February 18, 2019, around 07:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the two-lane road near the Sinsan-si Incheon Metropolitan City, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the two-lanes in the two-lanes was changed to one lane in the front section. In the process, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the two-lanes in the front section and the front section of the Defendant’s vehicle, the left side part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the one-lanes, were shocked.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On April 17, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 169,000 won for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (200,000 won for self-payment) as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 4, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs slowly on the two-lanes in the front direction, which could anticipate the change of the lane of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Although the Plaintiff’s previous Plaintiff’s vehicle was obligated to yield a concession on the change of the vehicle line, the instant accident was caused by unreasonable operation.

Since the Defendant is fully responsible for the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant must pay the Plaintiff the insurance money of KRW 169,000 paid by the Plaintiff for the repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the delay damages therefrom.

B. In addition to the facts of the judgment 1 and the purport of the entire arguments in the above evidence, the accident of this case is deemed to have caused the negligence of changing the course into one lane without properly examining the movement of the Defendant vehicle running one lane in order to move ahead of the accident, which was driven by the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving at a rapid speed of two lanes.

(b).